Requests for Adminship
Requests for Adminship (RfA) is the process by which the community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. See the Requests for Adminship Archive page if you are looking for all past applications. Requirements Before submitting a request for adminship, users must meet a list of requirements. The requirements are listed below: *The user must have completed at least 1,000 or more edits at the time of their submission. *The user must have been an accounted member of the wikia for at least seven months* at the time of their submission. *In addition, no user may submit a request if another admin request is still being voted upon. This allows the community to focus and devote their full attention to a single request before moving on to another. If a user submits a request without matching one of these requirements, their submission will be removed immediately. They can re-submit their request at a later date, with an existing admin's permission. Notes 1. *This time period was decided upon so that the user has had experience on the wikia during various times of the year, including during the airing of AMC's The Walking Dead, when the community tends to be busiest. Request Process 1. A user submits his request for adminship or is nominated by another user. Submit your request by leaving a message detailing why you feel you are qualified for the position and why you would be an asset to the community. Follow your message with your signature. 2. Users in the community will have a two-week period to support, oppose, or remain neutral to a user's request. IPs, or users without accounts are not allowed to vote. 3. When the two-week period is up, the page will be locked so that no new votes can be made. If the request has at least 8 supportive votes* and more supportive votes than opposing votes, it is qualified for admin voting. If not, the request is denied. 4. If the request is qualified, the admins will have one week to vote. They will submit their votes anonymously amongst themselves. The request needs a simple majority of the voting admins** to be approved. 5. If the majority of the voting admins decide to approve a request, a bureaucrat will grant the user adminship. Notes :1. *Admins are allowed to vote in the preliminary voting if they decide to, but they are not required to. :2. **At least two-thirds of the admins need to cast votes during admin voting. How to vote To vote, simply place one of the four voting templates below the request, along with any existing votes. The voting templates to choose from are "Support", "Oppose", "Neutral", and "Comment". After placing the template, explain why you cast that specific vote. Provide valid reasoning; don't support a user simply because they are your friend or oppose a user because you don't like them. Provide solid and clear reasoning. Keep in mind that you are not only voting on the request, but also trying to persuade the admins to support or oppose the submission. Follow your reasoning with your signature. Voting templates Nominations/Candidates SilentGlaive Now, originally, I was not going to run for this. But, after some heavy thinking, I realize that I indeed should try to go for this. If you do not know who I am, let me explain; I did write a speech, but it burst into flames again. Anyway, stupid joke aside, to most of you, I am known by my actual name, Kaley, rather than "Silent" or "Glaive." If you have gotten to know me, then you know that I care a lot about each and every one of you. I have had experience dealing with other users and maintaining a reasonable attitude, as well as an understanding of how the admin dashboard works. I also know a little something about coding, too. An example is the Media-Wiki page for our staff members, in which tags were included such as "Janitor," "Comic Reader," etc. I've managed to take some time into becoming part of this wiki, and I do enjoy working with you all. So if you do decide to support me, I would appreciate it. However, if you do not feel like I am fit, then please do not be afraid on saying so. Just be sure it makes sense, for both supporting and opposing. If this does happen, I promise I will not take advantage of the position. I've learned that it is never to be taken advantage of. Thank you all. :P ~ [[User:SilentGlaive|''SilentGlaive]][[User talk:SilentGlaive| '''Knowledge is']]''' power''' 02:42, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Im my opinion, Kaley would be our best choice for admin. Since we are desperatley in need of a new admin, she would make a good fit. Kaley has a more than enough edits to be an admin. Besides edits, another thing I highly look for in a good admin, is likability, and I see Kaley on the chat every day. Every time someone comes on the chat, she is sure to greet them and is nice to everyone no matter who they are. I also see Kaley on the chat every night for at least a few hours, so there is my vote -DominicT22 - Kaley is an excellent editor and is online everyday. She has shown constant dedication towards the wiki and I know she will listen to ideas that others have. Another thing is, like Dom said above, Kaley is on chat almost everyday, she is very friendly and that is in my opinion the best quality for an admin to have. I know you will be an amazing admin, you have my full support, Kaley. --Devinthe66 (talk) 02:57, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Despite our epic fight for the thrown of the small country known as Webaneba, she seems like she is good stuff and things admins need to be good at. Such as EDITING, TYPING, GRAMMAR, etc. She has my vote. Bloxxasourus (talk) 03:04, January 27, 2014 (UTC) - Kaley exhibits the qualities for being a great admin. She's polite and friendly to everyone, offers advice to people, contributes to the success of this wiki and would make a great addition to the admin team. She has my support and I wish her the best, good luck and look forward to working together with her for the benefit of this community. Best of luck Kaley. Heisenberg 03:06, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Kaley is one of my closest friends here. She would be perfect for admin. She's got the expirence from other wikis, she is also active with editing and on the chat talking and being friendly with other users. As of right now I see no better pick for admin that her and this wiki could always use more active admins as it continues to grow. She's got all the right traits for adminship and my vote. - GhostWolf716 (talk) 03:11, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Even though I was just promoted, I feel that we need another dedicated admin. One who is online as much as possible and understands the coding well. I see no better person for this than Kaley. As an admin of this wiki, Kaley would be my first pick to join the team. She is dedicated, knows the code and is a very friendly person. All these traits always make for an awesome admin and I trust she will be one. Not to mention that Kaley has been and admin and bureaucrat on other wikis before...so she already knows how to handle the admin position. You have my 100% backing Kaley! Good luck! -- Gravelord (talk) 04:11, January 27, 2014 (UTC) You are great with users, great with admin duties as I've seen from other wikis, and great with general wiki stuff. There is no reason to oppose. You have all three members of the GGG supporting, which makes it fair to say you've got this in the bag. GRANDMASTA (talk) 04:21, January 27, 2014 (UTC) You said it best yourself there, especially when it comes to dealing with the basic users. I was hoping you'd go for chat mod but this is even better, as you do indeed keep up with the technical aspects that folks take for granted or don't want to do. You would be the ideal choice for this, along with the other admins. Best of luck Kaley! WesZombie (talk) 04:18, January 27, 2014 (UTC) This is excellent. Yes you should be an admin as you connect with many users on this wiki and contribute often. Stub70 (talk) 04:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Category:Content